SEPP

I have had this old article by global warming denier Fred Singer in my inbox for quite some time now. It appeared in the April 22, 1996 edition of the Washington Times.

It seems that if Singer had his way, we would have dropped all this climate change and ozone depletion nonsense a long time ago and got onto more important issues… like planetary defense systems against giant comets and asteroids.

In light of his having threatened to sue us, we have been poking around (and accepting help in that regard from clever readers) and have come up with two more comments on Dr. S. Fred Singer.

First, and much in his favour, we have his own CV, which distinguishes Dr. Singer as a scientist of significant accomplishment, although given his current role as an anti-government lobbyist, he must be a little embarrassed about having spent two stints on the taxpayer's tab (once under Nixon, and once under Reagan/Bush).

On Sunday, June 18, the DeSmogBlog received an email from Dr. S. Fred Singer, in which he says, “Yr (sic) June 16 blog contains the false statement that I sold my services to tobacco lobbyists.”

Dr. Singer goes on to “demand a full retraction and apology from the blog,” and he asks that we publish the following statement: “Dr. Singer and SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) have no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past. As a matter of policy, SEPP does not solicit funds or other kinds of support from any industry or from government, but relies on tax-deductible donations from foundations and individuals in many countries. Further, Dr. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an organization that has a strong anti-smoking position.”

We have no comment on the ACSH, but Dr. Singer’s main point – that he has “no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past” – strains credulity.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.